Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!goddard
From: goddard@rochester.UUCP (Nigel Goddard)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
Message-ID: <15325@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Feb-86 12:54:10 EST
Article-I.D.: rocheste.15325
Posted: Fri Feb 14 12:54:10 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Feb-86 09:08:46 EST
References: <260@hadron.UUCP>
Reply-To: goddard@seneca.UUCP (Nigel Goddard)
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 70
Xref: linus net.followup:4840 net.politics:12816

In article <260@hadron.UUCP> jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes:

>or practically any distressed group one can imagine.  This seems
>to be related to the American brand of socialism, which is to
>say that those who have often (and unfortunately not always)
>will make a point of giving to some central fund to make sure
>that those who have not, might.

You seem to be confusing socialism with charity.

This example underlines the fundamental difference between our European
and North American contributors, a difference subtle but profound which
has lead to acrimonious exchanges over the Challenger fund.  As a
European currently living in the U.S.A. it has become clear to me that
the major seperation is over the question of the individual versus the
collective.  That Joseph Yao can call the above formulation a 'brand of
socialism' is but an example of the difficulty people here have thinking
in terms of the collective.  He would have the individual retaining the
right to decide whether or not to provide for those in need.  In the the
U.S.A. this is seen to be an indication of a caring society that takes
care of its own (at least if the needy are given to some of the time).
From a European persepective (at least mine) this is no more than charity,
a word which has severe negative connotations as a social policy.  Any
collective approach, where the collective (society as a whole) decides
whether or not to provide for those in need is seen here as a fundamental
attack on individual rights and liberties, encroachment of government to
areas outside its proper sphere.  Again from my European viewpoint such
a collective framework (at least to some extent) is not only necessary
but entirely obvious and natural, and poses no threats to my rights or
liberties, and indeed is a proper activity of government (being the
representative of society).

Now one can argue the rights and wrongs of both viewpoints, but my
purpose here is to elucidate the basis for the constant misunderstandings
apparent in this issue.  After many discussions here in the U.S. it
seems to me that just as many in Europe do not see the limitations of
their democratic institutions and do not understand an emphasis on
indivdual rights, many in the U.S.A. do not see the limitations of
their power as individuals and do not understand the nature of the
collective.  These viewpoints are so deeply rooted in historical
experience and culture that we will not come to any consensus and
would be well advised to accept that other peoples see the world in
other ways.  The original query from France that sparked this whole
debate could have been taken at face value as a question from another
culture, rather than as an attack on the U.S.

For the sake of clarity I have had to make gross generalisations about
U.S. and European attitudes.  Of course there is a wide spectrum of
opinion on both sides of the Atlantic, but the categorisation is
useful.

Cheers

Nigel



Internet:	goddard@rochester.arpa
UUCP:		{decvax, allegra,  seismo, cmc12}!rochester!goddard
Phone:		[USA] (716) 275-5766 
School:		Department of Computer Science; University of Rochester;
		Rochester, NY 14627

-- 

Internet:	goddard@rochester.arpa
UUCP:		{decvax, allegra,  seismo, cmc12}!rochester!goddard
Phone:		[USA] (716) 275-5766 
School:		Department of Computer Science; University of Rochester;
		Rochester, NY 14627